Motilal B. Naik, J.Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 4 foi payment of compensation of Rupees one Lakh on account of the death of their son Basheer Ahmed in police custody and further seek a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action including that of prosecuting the fourth respondent and other Police Constables responsible for the death of Basheer Ahmed while he was in the custody of the I Town Police Station, Madanapalle.

2. These two petitioners who are the father and mother of the deceased Basheer Ahmed have moved this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief as cited supra on the ground that their son Basheer Ahmed died in the custody of I Town Police Station, Madanapalle on account of torture by the Police personnel while he was in illegal detention in I Town Police Station, Madanapalle from 23-8-1991 to 24-8-1991. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner was keeping indifferent health and therefore, came to Madanapalle and got himself admitted in a private hospital on 23-8-1991. His eldest son Basheer Ahmed came to Madanapalle to meet the petitioners who are his father and mother. After meeting his parents, Basheer Ahmed went back to Punganur, a place of their ordinary residence. On 25-8-1991, a Police constable from Punganur Police Station went to their house at Punganur and made enquiries about the first petitioner and his son Basheer Ahmed. 1st Petitioners daughter and son-in-law seem to have informed the Constable that the first petitioner is hospitalised and he is under treatment in Chandramohans Hospital at Madanapalle and tried to elicit some more information as to why the Police Constable is enquiring about the first petitioner. On such enquiry, the Constable seems to have informed the daughter and son-in-law that Basheer Ahmeds condition is serious and desired to take the father and mother of Basheer Ahmed to Government Hospital at Madanapalle. Knowing the information as to the stay of the petitioners in a Private Hospital at Madanapalle, the Constable seems to have come to Chandramohans Hospital at Madanapalle and took the second petitioner and her daughter to Madanapalle Government Hospital to see Basheer Ahmed. As the condition of the first petitioner was critical, he was left alone in the hospital and he was not disturbed. It is stated, that in the mean time, on knowing about this incident, the son-in-law of the petitioners seems to have gone to the Government Hospital at Madanapalle and requested the Police Personnel present there to show Basheer Ahmed. When the Police were not disclosing the facts about the health condition of Basheer Ahmed, he became suspicious and rushed to Punganur, the ordinary place of residence of the petitioners family, and brought some relatives to Madanapalle. It was then, the Police disclosed to the second petitioner and son-in-law that Basheer Ahmed had died in I Town Police Station, Madanapalle. The Police, according to the petitioners, in their anxiety prepared some statements and wanted the second petitioner to sign on the said statements. It is stated that the second petitioner refused to sign on the statements and insisted to show the dead body of her son Basheer Ahmed. The crowd which had gathered before the Government Hospital became unrest and demanded that the dead body should be shown to the relatives of the deceased. At that stage, the police showed the body of the deceased Basheer Ahmed to the releatives including the second petitioner. It is stated that they noticed several injuries on the dead body of Basheer Ahmed and later the dead body was sent for Post-Mortem Examination. According to the petitioners, on enquiries made by them, it was revealed that their son Basheer Ahmed was picked up by the Police on 23-8-1991 at the Bus Stand on suspicion and he was taken to I Town Police Station, Madanapalle and tortured in the Police Station. On account of beating and torturing by the Police in the I Town Police Station, Basheer Ahmed died and the body was moved to the Hospital where he was finally declared dead by the doctors of Government Hospital, Madanapalle. It is alleged that the Police on finding that Basheer Ahmed died in their custody on account of beating and torturing, foisted a false case as if Basheer Ahmed was involved in a theft case and a case was also registered in Crime No. 98/91 u/s 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners further alleged that the Police later-on registered an FIR at II Town Police Station in Crime No. 80/91 stating that the S.I. of Police, I Town Police Station, the fourth respondent herein, had reported that the deceased Basheer Ahmed who was in police custody from 2.45 P.M. on 23-8-1991 got fits at 12.30 P.M. on 24-8-1991, while preparations being made to produce him in the Court, and that he was taken to the Government Hospital at 1.00 P.M. where he was declared dead. These petitioners state that the issuance of first FIR in Crime No. 98/91 by the I Town Police Station Madanapalle u/s 380 IPC and the second FIR in Crime No. 80/91 by the II Town Police S tation, Madanapalle, are all stage-managed for the purpose of avoiding any responsibility that would be fall on them.

3. To meet these allegations, a counter is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 refuting the allegations that Basheer Ahmed died because of the beating and torturing by the Police. On the contrary, the stand taken by the respondents 1 to 3 is to the effect that the deceased Basheer Ahmed was brought to the I Town Police Station, Madanapalle on 23-8-1991 around 2.30 PM by one Shankar Reddy and others alleging that Basheer Ahmed was involved in theft of a saree, he was caught red-handed and people gathered in that place beat Basheer Ahmed. Accordingly, a complaint in Crime No. 98/91 was registered u/s 380 IPC on the basis of the complaint given by said Shankar Reddy, Sarpanch, Molakalacheruvu, resident of Society Colony, Madanapalle. It is the further case of the respondents 1 to 3 that the fourth respondent who was present at the time when the deceased was brought to Police Station, noticed small injuries on his body, kept him in police custody and prepared necessary FIR on the basis of the complaint filed by said Shankar Reddy. On the next day, i.e., on 24-8-1991 around 12.30 P.M. when the fourth respondent was preparing a remand report for producing Basheer Ahmed before the Court, he developed fits. In order to get him treated, he was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital at Madanapalle where around 1.00 P.M. he was declared dead by the doctors of the said Hospital. It is further stated that subsequently a case in Crime No. 80/91 was registered in II Town Police Station and an express FIR was sent to the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Madanapalle. On 24-8-1991 the Sub-Inspector of Police. Madanapalle requested the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate to hold inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The inquest was conducted at 2.00 P.M. on 25-8-1991. After inquest, post-mortem was conducted on the dead body. The respondents 1 to 3 categorically denied that Basheer Ahmed died in Police Custody on account of alleged beating and torturing by the Police. It is further stated in the counter that a Magesterial enquiry was ordered in the matter by the second respondent by proceedings No. C.6/15378/91 dated 1-9-1991. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle conducted a Magisterial enquiry after issuing necessary notices to the general public to appear before him on 28-11-1991,9-12-1991,30-3-1992, and 25-6-1992 and the said enquiry went upto 26-10-1992. In all, it is stated that the Executive Magistrate examined 23 witnesses during the course of enquiry and also examined the Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem on the dead body. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16-4-1993. Besides the Magesterial enquiry, investigation by local police was held by Circle Inspector, Madanapalle and examined 11 witnesses including the fourth respondent. According to the police enquiry also, it is stated that the deceased was caught by the public while he was committing theft of saree and was beaten with sticks and hands and was then handed over to the I Town Police Station, Madanapalle. The respondents, on the contrary, stated that the deceased Basheer Ahmed died due to INTRACEREBRAL RUPTURE OF BERRY ANEURISUS. The respondents 1 to 3 ultimately contended that the petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation, nor any direction could be issued to the respondents for payment of compensation as the respondents are not responsible for the death of Basheer Ahmed.

4. The fourth respondent who filed a separate counter represented by Sri T. Bali Reddy, reiterates the stand taken by the respondents 1 to 3. He categorically denied that he is responsible for the death of Basheer Ahmed. The fourth respondent states that he came on transfer to I Town Police Station, Madanapalle and took charge on 7-8-1991 and was staying in a lodge as he was not allotted any accommodation. On 23-8-1991, he seems to have attended the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, at Madanapalle in a jeep along with police constable. After the Court work, he was returning to his lodge via Police Station for dropping the Constable there. Around 2.30 P.M. when he reached the Police Station he found number of people gathered near the Police Station. He found Basheer Ahmed with few abrasions and one or two contusions on his body. As soon as he entered Police Station, one Shankar Reddy, ex-Sarpanch of Mulakalacheruvu, who is temporarily residing at Society Colony, Madanapalle, gave a complaint stating that the said Basheer Ahmed had entered the compound of door No. 2-276, Society Colony, Madanapalle which was in the occupation of one Muralikrishna Reddy, Assistant Executive Engineer and committed theft of saree worth Rs. 600/- around 12.30 P.M. According to the fourth respondent, the said Shankar Reddy informed him that the public who gathered there have beaten the deceased Basheer Ahmed and brought him to Police Station. Accordingly, the fourth respondent registered a case in Crime No. 98/91 u/s 380 IPC. After arrest, Basheer Ahmed was sent to the lock-up room for producing him before the Court on the next day. In the counter, the forth respondent states that on 24-8-1991 around 12.30 P.M. when he was preparing a remand report for producing Basheer Ahmed before the Court, he got fits and immediately, he was rushed to Govt. Hospital, Madanapalle for treatment where at 1.00 P.M. the doctors of the said Hospital declared Basheer Ahmed as dead. Thereafter, at 2.00 P.M. on 24-8- 1991, the forth respondent went to II Town Police Station and gave a report to the S.I. of Police narrating the facts and a case in Crime No. 80/91 was registered u/s 176 Cr .P.C. It is the categorical assertion of the fourth respondent that he is not responsible for the death of Basheer Ahmed. It is only because of medical problem, he died, though in the custody of police. The forth respondent further contended that the relief sought by the Petitioners cannot be granted.

5. To support their contentions, the respondents have placed before me the Magisterial enquiry report, which according to them, throws light as to how the deceased Basheer Ahmed died. The respondents have also placed before me the relevant case Diary, Docket Sheet pertaining to crime No. 98/91 and 80/91. They also placed before me on the directions from the Court, General Diary Register pertaining to I Town Police Station, Madanapalle and Prisoners Search Register of I Town Police Station.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel Sri Sadasiva Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, at length. I have also perused the documents and Registers placed before me, besides the Magisterial Enquiry Report, in support of the rival contentions.

7. Three issues emanate before this Court for deciding the controversy raised in this Writ Petition.

(1) Whether the deceased Basheer Ahmed died due to beatings and torturing by the Police Personnel while he was in police custody of I Town Police Station, Madanapalle

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents

(3) Whether this Court has power to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners

8. The case of the petitioners is that their son Basheer Ahmed, died on account of beating and torturing by the police while he was in the police custody of I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, who was illegally detained by the police on 23-8-1991. The further allegation of the petitioners is that the theft alleged to have been committed by their son Basheer Ahmed is only a stage managed affair, manipulated by the police for the purpose of getting out of this episode. The petitioners allege that the enquiry held by the Executive Magistrate is a farce enquiry, which has no legal sanctity. In the Magisterial Enquiry, the so- called complainant one Shankar Reddy or others who figured as witnesses in Crime No. 98/91 had not participated and therefore, the allegation that their son involved in a theft of saree on 23-8-1991 and was beaten by the public is a myth not supported by any evidence. The medical report and the finding of the Magistrate in his enquiry exonerating the police personnel is an eye-wash burying the truth.

9. In order to unearth the mystery as to whether Basheer Ahmed died due to torture by the police while he was in police custody as alleged by the petitioners, it is necessary to examine the statements made by the petitioners as well as the respondents with reference to the relevant records. The respondents categorically stated that Basheer Ahmed was involved in a theft case on 23-8-1991 in Society Colony, Madanapalle, he was caught red-handed while comitting the theft and was beaten by the mob gathered there. Basheer Ahmed was brought to I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, around 2.30 P.M. on 23-8-1991 and on a complaint given by one Shankar Reddy, a case in Crime No. 98/91 was registered and also the statements of Shankar Reddy and others were recorded as LWs. 1 to 7 on the same day. One important factor which is apparent from the statement of the fourth respondent as well as the statements of the witnesses who were examined as P.Ws. 12,13,14,15 and 20 before the Magisterial Enquiry, is that external injuries were found on the body of Basheer Ahmed. The fourth respondent also admits to this fact that external injuries were found on the body of Basheer Ahmed when he was brought to Police Station. P.Ws. 12,13,14,15 and 20 are categorical in their statements before the Magisterial enquiry that wounds were found on the lips, nose, hands penis and back side of the legs of the deceased Basheer Ahmed. P.W.17, the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination stated that he has noticed 11 external injuries on the body of Basheer Ahmed. If injuries are found on the body of any accused, the accused should be asked as to the circumstances under which the injuries were received by him on his body and basing on the statement, a case should also be registered as to the cause of the injuries sustained by the accused. In the instant case, admittedly, though external injuries were found on the body of the deceased Basheer Ahmed when he was brought to Police Station, no case is registered at his instance though statements of said complainant Shankar Reddy and others were recorded on 23-8-1991. The post-mortem certificate dated 25-8-1991 issued by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Madanapalle, who was examined as P.W.17 by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the course of Magisterial enquiry discloses the following eleven (11), injuries found on the body of the deceased:

"1. Abrasion of 1 cm. x 1 cm. at the root of the nose.

2. Abrasion of 1 cm. x 1 cm. on top of Rt. shoulder reddish brown in colour.

3. Contusion of 5 cm. x 11 /2 cm. oblique on left shoulder blade, buish black in colour.

4. Abrasion of 11 /2 cm. x l 1/2cm. on outer part of Lt. thigh in its upper part bluish black.

5. Abrasion in number of 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. size on Lt. loin blusih black in colour. .

6. Contusion of 3 mm. x 3 mm. over Rt. ankle joint in part.

7. Abrasion of 1 mm. x 1 /2 mm. over inner part of Lt. big toe bluish black to brown colour.

8. Contusion around the proxymal 1 p. joint on Rt. middle finger.

9. Abrasion of 1 cm. x 1 cm. on back of right chest.

10. Abrasion 3 in number of 1 cm. x 1 cm. on back of saercum.

11. Penis circumcises."

10. These injuries are in the nature of abrasions and contusions. If the statement of the respondents is to be accepted that the deceased was beaten up by the public while he was caught red-handed at the time of committing theft, it is astonishing as to why the fourth respondent failed to send the deceased Basheer Ahmed for treatment when as many as 11 external injuries were found on his body. The evidence of the Civil Assistant Surgeon P.W.17 recorded during the course of Magisterial Enquiry is available at page 83 in the Magisterial Enquiry Report produced before this Court which reads as under:

"During the post-mortem examination, I have noticed 11 external injuries which I have already detailed in the Post-mortem Certificate. In addition to the external injuries, I have also noticed that on the cerebro spiral fluid blood stained, brain matter conjested, five to six Berry Aneurisius were seen on the Cerebral Vessels of which two to three were seen ruptured."

The opinion of P.W.17 on the question of the death of Basheer Ahmed is under:

"I am of the opinion that the deceased would have been died due to rupture of "Berry aneurisius" in the brain. However, there is no fracture in the skull.

Normally Berry Aneurisius are congenital and are responsible to cause Epilepsy. There is possibility of getting the Berry Aneurisius rupture spontaneously or when the person is subjected to stress and strain."

The opinion of P.W.17 further indicates that the possibility of getting Berry Aneurisius ruptured spontaneously or when a person is subjected to stress and strain and such stress and strain could also be responsible for rupture of Berry Aneurisius in the brain and could be a cause for the death of the person.

11. It is the case of the respondents that the deceased had prolonged health problem due to which he died. But nothing has been placed before this Court on this aspect. It is the admitted case of the respondents that external injuries were found on the body of the deceased when he was brought to I Town Police Station, Madanapalle on 23-8-1991 at 2.30 P.M. by one Shankar Reddy and others. It is also not ruled out that the external injuries found on the body of the deceased cannot cause stress and strain as to cause Berry Aneurisius ruptured spontaneously. The post-mortem certificate pressed into service by the respondents, in fact, discloses that as many as eleven (11) external injuries were found on the body of Basheer Ahmed, which fact has not been denied by the I respondents. No answer is forthcoming from the respondents as to why the deceased was not sent to medical examination.

12. The respondents have pressed into service the Magisterial Enquiry Report to suggest that Basheer Ahmed received injuries on account of the beatings by the public while he was caught red-handed committing theft of a saree in the Society Colony, Madanapalle on 23-8-1991. The respondents disown any responsibility as to having tortured Basheer Ahmed while he was in custody.

13. The Magisterial Enquiry was held on various dates and in all, 23 witnesses were examined including the Civil Assistant Surgeon as P.W.17. It is interesting to note that neither Shankar Reddy who is alleged to have given complaint against Basheer Ahmed, nor the other witnesses who have figured as L.Ws. 1 to 7 in Crime No. 98/91 appeared before the Magisterial Enquiry and deposed to the fact of Basheer Ahmeds involvement in the act of theft on 23-8-1991 around 12.30 noon as alleged by the respondents. It would not have been difficult for the respondents to procure the presence of the said complainant Shankar Reddy and others before the Magisterial Enquiry and get their statements recorded in support of their case. Therefore, non-examination of the complainant Shankar Reddy and others who have given statements before the Police on 23-8-1991, in my view, disproves the case of the respondents that Basheer Ahmed was beaten by the public while he was committing theft on 23-8-1991. Afterall, the entire case of the respondents is that Basheer Ahmed was caught red-handed while committing theft in Society Colony, Madanappalle and was apprehended by mob and was beaten and because of the beatings, some external injuries were found on the body of the deceased Basheer Ahmed and that the police are not responsible even for the external injuries. Shankar Reddy and other persons who gave the statement before the I Town Police Station on 23-8-1991 are all residents of Madanapalle Town. As I said earlier, there could not have been any difficulty for the respondents in getting the statement of these persons recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Probably, the respondents were afraid if those persons are examined, truth may come out and expose their design. The respondents may very well say that these persons including Shankar Reddy have either no knowledge of Magisterial Enquiry or even if they had knowledge they failed to appear before the Magisterial Enquiry and as such, the respondents cannot be held responsible for such a situation.

14. The reasons are two-fold. Either these people including Shankar Reddy were not willing to give evidence before the Magisterial Enquiry as they were afraid, if they depose falsehood before the Magisterial Enquiry which is said to have been conducted openly, others may watch their statements and may try to find fault with them or the respondents, in particular the police personnel of Madanapalle I Town Police Station, prevented them from making statements which would have gone against them. Otherwise, there cannot be any reason for the said Shankar Reddy and six other persons who are stated to be instrumental in filing a complaint against the deceased Basheer Ahmed before the I Town Police Station, Madanapalle on 23-8-1991, for not figuring as witnesses before the Magisterial Enquiry.

15. Prisoners Search Register is one of the important Registers maintained in Police Stations, which is in the custody of the Guard who is on Guard duty at the lock-up room. This Register contains the description as to the date and hour of taking the accused into custody, confinement and name of the prisoner, his description, date of release, property found on his body and also contains the signature of the detenu and the Station House Officer. In this Register, any injuries found on the body of the person is also recorded.

16. In order to examine the veracity of the statements of the respondents, immediately after the arguments were heard and the case was posted for judgment, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 was directed by this Court to place the Prisoners Search Register before this Court, pertaining to I Town Police Station, Madanapalle and also the General Diary Register. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader for Home, placed these Registers before this Court. The Registers so placed before this Court are ill-maintained and few pages are eaten away by the insects.

17. As seen from the Prisoners Search Register, the entries are made from 10-7-1990 onwards and the last entry which appears in this Register is dated 23-8-1991. Thereafter, no entries are made in this Register. It is not known whether after 23-8-1991, no person was detained by the police in the lock-up room. The last entry which is dated 23-8-1991 is inserted in the last page of the said Register with small writing. The last column of the Register discloses as under:

The earlier entry said to have been made on 22-8-1991 discloses that on 22-8-1991, in all, six persons have been brought to Police Station and detained in the lock-up room. The entries further disclose that on 23-8-1991 around 1.00 P.M. all these people were taken out, for producing them before the Competent Court of law. The last entry referable to the deceased discloses the fact of injuries found on the body of the deceased. It looks to me that respondents in their endeavour to convince the public and Courts, appear to have inserted these entries in the said Register subsequently.

18. It is not the case of the respondents that from 23-8-1991 onwards, there was no detention in lock-up room by the Police. It is also not their case that there are no blank pages available in the said book to record further entries. If there are detenus other than the deceased on 23-8-1991 and 24-8-1991, it could have been easily established by recording the statements of those detenus that on these two days whether or not the I Town Police Station personnel of Madanapalle tortured and beaten the deceased while he was in their custody. The fact that no entries are made in the said Register after 23-8-1991 also gives scope for this Court to disbelieve the version of the respondents that Basheer Ahmed was not tortured while he was in police custody between 2-45 P.M. on 23-8-1991 to 12.30 noon on 24-8-1991.

19. The respondents contention that the Magisterial Enquiry has exonerated them and that the enquiry report discloses that the death of Basheer Ahmed is due to Epilepsy, is not acceptable to this Court. In Brajnandan Sinha Vs. Jyoti Narain, ., the Supreme Court held that a Magistrate holding enquiry u/s 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can by no stretch of imagination be considered as a proceedings before a Court. It is at best a proceeding before a Magistrate acting in his executive or administrative capacity for grant of power to hold enquiry u/s 176 is incidental to an executive or administrative function. It has nothing to do with the exercise of judicial power. The Magistrate is not even required to arrive at a finding or to make a report. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the Magistrate does not function as Criminal Court while holding enquiry u/s 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

20. In P. Rajangam, Sub-Inspector of Police and Others Vs. State of Madras and Others, , a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the object of Magisterial Enquiry is merely to furnish material on which action might be taken or not and the report of the Magistrate would by itself be of purely recommendatory character and not effective proprio vigore. It does not dispose of the rights of parties and in fact neither the report nor the statements recorded therein would be admissible evidence in any future proceedings.

21. Therefore, an Executive Magistrate cannot function as Criminal Court while holding enquiry u/s 176 of Cr.P.C.

22. On a careful consideration of the entire material placed before me and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to come to the conclusion that the death of Basheer Ahmed is only on account of beating and torture by the Police personnel of I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, while he was in their custody between 23-8-1991 and 24-8-1991. The medical reportsays that the death could be on account of rupture of Berry Anecurisius in the brain. The report further says that there is possibility of getting Berry Anecurisius rupture spontaneously or when a person is subjected to stress and strain. It is not disputed that the 11 injuries found on the body of the deceased are (not) capable of causing stress and strain. Therefore, the only conclusion that could be drawn is, the injuries found on the body of Basheer Ahmed have caused stress and strain and on account of such stress and strain Berry Anecurisius ruptured, due to the said rupture, Basheer Ahmed died.

23. The next question that arises for immediate consideration is who are the police personnel responsible for torturing and beating Basheer Ahmed, on account of which, he died. This Court is given to understand that the I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, has one Inspector of Police, two Sub-Inspectors, one Head Constable and six to seven Constables. It is therefore, difficult for this Court to pin-point the responsibility on one person who could be held responsible for the acts of torturing and beating the deceased Basher Ahmed, while he was in custody on 23-8-1991 and 24-8-1991. The first and the third respondents may initiate necessary departmental enquiry on this aspect, for fixing the responsibility and take necessary action against the guilty police personnel after the departmental enquiry. The first issue is answered accordingly.

24. I shall now proceed on to examine issues 2 and 3.

25. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal liberty to every citizen. Right to live with human dignity is a necessary component of right to life. In order to live with human dignity, a citizen should have necessary economical means to lead a dignified life. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased Basheer Ahmed, and according to them, their son Basheer Ahmed was aged 22 years at the time of his death and was assisting the first petitioner in his profession or Butchery. The family was surviving on the income derived from their profession. On account of the untimely death of their son Basheer Ahmed, the first petitioner is denied of the assistance of his son. Therefore, the income of the family has considerably been reduced. In fact, the first petitioner has become sick and is not in a position to concentrate on his profession which ultimately led to fall in the income. In this situation, can the petitioners lead life with dignity as they were leading prior to the death of their son. The answer, undoubtedly, is "not". After all, the parents in their old age depend upon their grown up children. In this case, the gruesome act of the respondents has deprived the petitioners the required assistance for leading a dignified life in their old age, besides causing mental agony and sufferings. The death of their son, in the circumstances, has caused more agony and has telling effect on the health of the petitioners. It is in these circumstances, the gruesome acts of the respondents shall be considered to have the culminating effect of offending the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to the petitioners.

26. The concept of liability of the State against the acts committed by its servants, entitlement of compensation by the affected parties, when fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is offended and the power of the High Courts and the Supreme Court directing the State to pay compensation, have been considered by the Supreme Court in a series of judicial pronouncements in Rudul Sah Vs. State of Bihar and Another, ., Sebastian M. Hongray Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . M.C. Mehta and another Vs. Union of India and others, . Saheli, A Womens Resources center, Through Ms Nalini Bhanot and Others Vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi Police Headquarters and Others, . and Smt. Nilabati Behera alieas Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others, .

27. In M.C. Mehta and another Vs. Union of India and others, the Supreme Court observed as under:

"The power of the Court is not only injunctive in ambit, that is, preventing the infringement of a fundamental right, but it is also remedial in scope and provides relief against a breach of the fundamental right already committed. If the Court were powerless to issue any direction, order or writ in cases where a fundamental right has already been violated, Article 32 would be robbed of all its efficacy, because then the situation would be that if a fundamental right is threatened to be violated, the Court can injunct such violation but if the violator is quick enough to take action infringing the fundamental right, he would escape from the net of Article 32. That would, to a large extent, emasculate the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 32 and render it impotent and futile. It must therefore, be said that Article 32 is not powerless to assist a person when he finds that his fundamental right has been violated. He can in that event seek remedial assistance under Article 32. The power of the Court to grant such remedial relief may include the power to award compensation in appropriate cases."

28. In Smt Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa (7 supra), the Supreme Court was specifically dealing with Articles 21, 32, 142 and 226 of the Constitution of India and the implication of contravention of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the State and its agencies and the claim for compensation in petitions filed under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. While referring to its earlier decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the State is responsible for the acts committed by its servants and on a petition filed for compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a given circumstance, High Court is entitled to direct payment of compensation to the petitioners as if the liability is on the Government itself. What is required to be seen by the Court while directing payment of compensation is whether the fact of infringment is patent and incontrovertible, the violation was gross and its magnitude is such as to shock the conscious (sic. conscience) of the Court. The events enumerated in this case are such that it shocks the consciousness of this Court. Therefore, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to seek compensation from the respondents. Therefore what could be the reasonable compensation the petitioners are entitled to

29. The petitioners are none other than the parents of the deceased Bahseer Ahmed who died in I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, on account of torturing and beating by the police. The first petitioner is aged around 46 years and the second petitioner is aged around 37 years as on the date of filing of this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition, according to the record, is filed on 15-4-1994 and as such, as on today, the first petitioner must be about 48 to 49 years and the second petitioner about 39 to 40 years. The deceased Basheer Ahmed was aged about 22 years. Had he been alive, he would have added more income to his family, besides happiness to his parents. The petitioners could have lived with dignity. Their right to live with dignity is robbed of on account of custodial death of their son Basheer Ahmed.

30. Taking into consideration, the age of the deceased Basheer Ahmed, the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners, the petitioners claim of one lakh rupees from the respondents as compensation, in my view, is just and reasonable.

31. Issues 2 and 3 are accordingly, answered.

32. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rupees one Lakh from the respondents. Since the first respondent/State of Andhra Pradesh is held to be responsible for the acts committed by its servants, the first respondent is directed to pay the compensation amount, as directed above, to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

33. Apart from the above compensation, I am of the view, that the petitioners are also entitled for reasonable costs, as the petitioners son Basheer Ahmed died in the custody of I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, on account of tortuous acts of Police personnel of I Town Police Station, Madanapalle, due to which the petitioners have not only suffered mental agony and anxiety but had to move various authorities for seeking justice including this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

34. In my view, the petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand only) towards costs to be paid by the first respondent, along with the compensation amount of Rupees One Lakh, totalling to Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and ten thousand only) within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent-District Collector, Chittoor District, shall take necessary steps in this behalf and report compliance of this order to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within three months from today.

35. The State of Andhra Pradesh is entitled to take necessary action against those officials who are held responsible for the death of Basheer Ahmed while he was in the custody of I Town Police Station, Madanapalle on 23-8-1991 and 24-8-1991, including their prosecution and recovery of the amount paid as compensation or part thereof from the Police personnel who will be found responsible, in the departmental action.

36. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms.